Just a former US soldier who served 2 tours in Iraq and his thoughts on life, family, the Army, and other insights.****DISCLAIMER**** ALL opinions expressed on this blog are those of myself in my private capacity and not as a representative of the DoD, DA, or any particular element of the Government. By viewing this site you accept and agree to this disclaimer in the use of any information accessed in this website.

53 comments:

My son served in 3rd ID first time around in Iraq..Our prayers are with you. Sorry about the spamming bots in your comment section. They are a new phenomenon..last ten days google hasn't figured out what to do about yet..

(CNSNews.com) - A Republican lawmaker is troubled by a New York Times report saying that Palestinian militants in Gaza are using U.N. funds to create banners emblazoned with anti-Israel propaganda. The New York Times reported on Aug. 15 that the Fatah (the Palestinian National Liberation Movement founded by Yasser Arafat) hung banners in Gaza City reading, "Gaza Today, the West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow." A disclaimer at the bottom of the banner said it had been paid for by the United Nations Development Program. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) called the situation unacceptable because it looks like the U.N. is funding groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- "demonstrating, once again, its long-time anti-Israel bias," he said. "Either the U.N. has been derelict in its oversight of how aid funds are used and to whom they flow, or it is fair to assume U.N. complicity with a radical anti-Israel group." Cantor said the American people will not stand for their taxpayer dollars being used to support terrorists: "They deserve to know how the U.N. allowed such funds to be used for such scurrilous purposes."

You obviously know zilch about the history of the systematic dispossession and brutal oppression of the Palestinian people by Israel, and Zach's blog is not the forum to embark on the extensive education you clearly need. I recommend spending a few weeks travelling in the Occupied Territories, plus a few years de-programming yourself from years of US/Israeli propaganda by reading some history (it worked for me). Meanwhile, here's a few starting points.

1. Gaza today: Israel is finally complying with international laws and 38 years of UN resolutions by removing just 2% of its US-funded racist fundamentalist squatters from Palestinian land. The other 98% of illegal squatters are in East Jerusalem and the West Bank and there is little prospect of them being removed any time soon.

2. The West Bank: There are around 400,000 illegal settlers (squatters) in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The West Bank belongs to the Palestinians, and international law and 38 years of UN resolutions require the squatters to return to their country i.e. Israel. Unfortunately, the USA and Israel regard apartheid, ethnic cleansing and brutal racist oppression as preferable to complying with international law or the various peace proposals on the table (the Saudi plan or the Geneva accord, for example). Right now, an American Jew from New Jersey who has never experienced a day's hardship or oppression in his life can turn up in Israel and get a state-subsidised house on stolen Palestinian land, while the rightful inhabitants are cleansed from their lands and walled up in ghettos. Israel has reserved more than half the land and all of the water resources in the West Bank for its squatters, all in direct breach of international law, UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions.

3. Jerusalem: Israel has illegally annexed East Jerusalem and declared an arbitrary boundary to its annexed "Jerusalem" which reaches deep into the West Bank (halfway to Jericho in fact). Like the West Bank, East Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians, but is occupied by Israel. The existing peace proposals (see above) envisage a certain amount of compromise on both sides, perhaps with international guarantees to ensure that both Israel and Palestine can claim parts of Jerusalem while still allowing access to holy sites to all communities.

The current Gaza "withdrawal" is a circus, as Israel will still control all access to Gaza, making it one big concentration camp. The "trauma" of evicting Israeli squatters has been carefully staged to make sure nobody suggests removing the remaining 400,000 squatters from the rest of the OTs. If Israel really wanted to force the settlers out quickly, all it had to do was say "Right, guys. Our soldiers are going home on Friday. You're on your own after that." Or they could have used bulldozers and bombs, as they do when destroying Palestinian homes.

Basically, this conflict could be resolved in a matter of months, if the USA would use its influence to force Israel to remove its squatters from the Occupied Territories (this would after all help protect them from Palestinian "terrorism"). The withdrawal of Israeli troops might take longer, but could be managed easily enough with international help. Jerusalem will require some special handling, but no harder than Berlin in the Cold War.

But the US government does not give a damn about the rule of law, justice or peace. Americans are brainwashed by decades of racist pro-Israeli propaganda which treats this brutal conflict as a 1950s Western movie - white settlers against the evil brown-skinned savages - instead of as a relentless colonial process of ethnic cleansing which destabilises the whole region and threatens all of us. Israel's 1967 borders include 78% of Palestine. Israel wants the other 22% for its squatters, which leaves 0% for the Palestinians who have lived there for a thousand years or more (considerably longer than most Americans have lived in North America). Palestinians learned in 1948 that if they fled from Israeli ethnic cleansing, they would never get their homes back. So now they are determined to hold out against ongoing US-funded Israeli efforts to create a "land without people for a people without land". Hence the conflict.

It's just like Iraq: Don't believe everything the NYT or the government tells you. Here's some other information to get you started:

Oh, and in case you're all wondering why anyone reading this blog about Zach in Iraq should care about Palestine: You Americans may not know about what has been done to the Palestinians over the last 100 years, but most Arabs do. For many years now, they have watched your hevaily subsidised Israeli proxies laying waste to Palestinian homes and cities in the Occupied Territories using the same tactics your troops are now using in Iraq. They know that the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict was created by Western treachery and interference, and that Israel will not end its occupation without a fight, so maybe that is one reason why they do not feel like trusting your government to end its occupation of Iraq without a fight.

Peace to all in Iraq and the Middle East. God knows, you all need it. So I'll shut up now.

Sorry, Taff, but you obviously misunderstood my reference about giving tax dollars to terrorists & our government's continued fiscal fawning over Israel. I'd simply assumed that everyone knew, as you apparently do, the historical facts in evidence of Israel's existence as a nation of terrorists.

Israelis have just been just trying to survive ever since the Holocaust. The Palestinian authority said Publicly that it will actively fight by any means neccessary killing men women & children until every inch of Israel is theirs, and the Jews are either homeless or dead. The surrounding countries of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, And Saudi Arabia are all silent agreeing partners.

You will sympathize with the terrorist actions of the palestinians, who are being used by the enemies of Israel, but turn a blind eye to a nation surrounded by enemies, and call them the terrorists. It is a miracle they have survived this long with so much against them!

In 1947, Palestinian Arabs were offered a UN proposal endorsed by the "Palestine Jews" that would have given them a great deal more land than they have today, but they refused the deal and demanded more of the land.

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Why doesn't Jordan give it's share of palestinian land back - because Israel is occupying it.

Palestinian authority said Publicly that it will actively fight by any means neccessary - where? The PLO recognised Israel in the 1980s, and has repeatedly confirmed this. Even Hamas has admitted that if Israel withdrew from the Occupied Territories it would cease "military" (their term, not mine) operations inside Israel. This has to be more "secure" for Israel than the current situation.

The surrounding countries of Jordan, Syria, Egypt - Egypt recognised Israel in the 1970s, Jordan is keen not to rock the boat as it depends on Western support, and Syria is quite understandably aggrieved by Israel's occupation of its land (which Moshe Dayan admitted was the result of Israeli provocations).

Saudi Arabia - is not near to Israel, could not defend itself against Iraq in Gulf War I, is heavily supported by your government and has no territorial designs on Israel.

Israelis have just been just trying to survive ever since the Holocaust - Zionists settlers first started arriving in Palestine 40 years before the Holocaust. Also, it was the Germans who killed 6 million Jews, not the Palestinians, so why not give the Zionists Bavaria if you want to give them a consolation prize?

and call them the terrorists - don't you know anything? Israel was founded by "terrorists" e.g. Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, even David Ben Gurion.

Israel has nuclear weapons and a huge army armed to the teeth with the latest US technology and is perfectly secure these days, and would certainly be even more secure without the Occupation. If the Occupation was about security for Israel, why would Israel import 400,000 of its own citizens into the war zone? Because the occupation is about land of course.

All you "friends of Israel" are the kind of "friends" that would watch a guy drink himself almost into a coma, then let him drive home. If you really care about Israel, why not start listening to the thousands upon thousands of Israelis who want the Occupation to end? For example:

It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

There was a wide patch of land on the EAST side of the Jordan river that was designated by the British as Palestine, and is not within the Israeli borders, but Which Jordan now "Occupies".

High ranking members of the Palestinian National Authority have made this statement after the news of the Gaza pullout, and of course they will SAY that they will stop military action.

AGAIN, Surrounded by Enemies, Public & Private.

Yes, the Zionists did arrive in palestine 40 years before the holocaust, and they did something good with the land, something the Arabs hadn't thought of yet, they developed it from a harsh, barren terrain, into a hospitable very liveable countryside. They were so good at it in fact that the Arabs started to migrate there to live.

And yes we all know the mantra "Founded by Terrorists" but then again most countries are.

Do I think Israel should give some land to the Palestines, of course. But demands for anything more than what was offered in the 1947 UN proposal, without cessation of all violence from the palestinians, is just futher proof of being surrounded by enemies.

The Mantra of Israeli brutality towards the Palestinians is sadly taken for fact without reasoning, by people unwilling to read a little history. When most, if not all of the blame for this mess, rests on the Palestinian massacres of the jews, but will anyone report that? After having survived a holocaust, Would anyone report the Arab planned massacre of the Jews?

Only us "Friends" of an embattled people who are just trying to survive.

Just try to imagine an embattled Britain during WWII with NO "Friends" to speak the truth of it!

We're trolling out too much of Zach's blog with this (I hope somebody else finds it interesting at least), but here's one last shot.

* they did something good with the land, something the Arabs hadn't thought of yet - but it was up to the Arabs what to do with their own land, surely?* the Arabs started to migrate there - this one really is a lie, the old "land without people" myth. It was European Jews who migrated there in large numbers (understandably given conditions in Europe, esp. Eastern Europe and Russia, at the time) in the years leading up to WWII.* the Palestinian massacres of the jews - what "massacres"? Try googling Deir Yassin, Tantoura etc if you want massacres. And it wasn't Palestinians who built Auschwitz, was it?* demands for anything more than what was offered in the 1947 UN proposal - Israel was offered about 60% of Palestine (west of the Jordan). It grabbed 78% in 1948, and now wants the rest, but without the indigenous inhabitants. I've seen the ruins of some of the Palestinian villages obliterated after the 1948 war and talked to some of the survivors in their West Bank refugee camps. Palestinians do not want to go through another Nakba, which is why they resist ethnic cleansing, as I and my countrymen would in their position.* Israeli brutality towards the Palestinians - in the latest intifada, around 1000 Israelis have been killed (out of a population of around 6 million), and over 3000 Palestinians have died (out of a population of some 3 million). That's 1 in 6000 Israelis, or 1 in 1000 Palestinians. To put this in perspective, 9/11 killed around 3000 Americans out of a population of around 300 million i.e. 1 in 100,000. It's 9/11 every week in Palestine.* try to imagine an embattled Britain during WWII with NO "Friends" - I don't have to try: Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany. It was over two years before our American friends considered Hitler enough of a threat to join WWII, and that was only after Japan had attacked you first. We Brits remember this time, even if you don't.* this automatic one sidedness of the issues - I'm not asking you to believe me, anonymous, even though I have been to the OTs and seen what Israel does there, and I have indeed read more than a little history on this topic. I used to believe the same "plucky little Israel" cr@p as most people, until I went there and found out for myself what has really been happening to the Palestinians this last 100 years, and the extent to which the truth is airbrushed out of the media (just like Iraq in that respect).

But you clearly care deeply about Israel, so please check out some of those links I gave you above - they're mostly to pages by Jewish Israelis - or seek out information from outside parties (WHO, UN, Save The Children, Amnesty etc), or read books and articles by people like Amira Hass (Jewish Israeli reporter based in the West Bank), Gideon Levy (Jewish Israeli reporter for Ha'aretz), Gilad Atzmon (Israeli writer and musician based in London), Tanya Reinhart (Israeli academic who's analysed the failings of the 1993 Oslo agreements), David Grossman's "The Yellow Wind" (his travels through the OTs), Tom Segev (Israeli writer), Uri Avnery (Israeli writer and peace campaigner), Michael Neumann (Jewish Canadian academic), Israel Shahak (Jewish Israeli writer), Edward Said (Christian Palestinian academic), Noam Chomsky, and so on. If you want, you can find out the truth from exclusively Jewish/Israeli sources (e.g. try Jews For Justice For Palestinians), so why not give it a go?

Or go there and see for yourself, as I and many others have done. See what terrible damage is being done to both sides by this racist occupation, and think what damage it is doing to Western efforts to engage positively with the wider Arab and Muslim world (and to our disastrous occupation of Iraq), and to efforts to eliminate terrorism in our own countries.

Taff,I don't think the dialogue you're having about the Palestinians and Israelis is nescessarily irrelevant here or "trolling".I think we have a habit of dissociating issues when the issues are actually weaved together.Our policy of defending Israel, right or wrong has a very significant impact on our relations in the Middle East.I think it was Noam Chomsky that suggested that our primary support of Israel had to do with our wanting a "junkyard dog" in the region, a sort of security outpost. Also what we're feeling in the middle east and around the world is the fallout of cold war policies and the remnants of all the proxiy wars we fought with the Soviets.

The Isrealis themselves are not very well informed regarding the displacements of Palestinians. It's not something that figures prominantly in their history books. However, they do experience the backlash from Hamas, which again leads to fear and aggressive counter by Israel, which then begets an agressive counter by the Palestinians and so on.It's a rather infectious and insidious cycle.

"what "massacres"?"You can choose to ignore history if you wish, and you can choose to justify Palestinian bombs. But history has been written.

The Massacres ofAugust 14th - September 1st 1929-The worst atrocities occurred in Hebron and Safed, where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others. The lone British policeman in the town, Raymond Cafferata, was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations).

Cafferata later testified that:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him." Most of the other Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. The surviving Jews were evacuated from the town.

The other major centers of violence were in Safed, where 18 Jews were killed in a brief attack, and in Jerusalem.

On September 1, Sir John Chancellor condemned "the atrocious acts committed by bodies of ruthless and bloodthirsty evildoers... murders perpetrated upon defenseless members of the Jewish population... accompanied by acts of unspeakable savagery."

Commission of Enquiry:A commission of enquiry lead by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows. [Material not in brackets is verbatim.]

The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established. The outbreak was not premeditated. [The disturbances] took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property. A general massacre of the Jewish community at Hebron was narrowly averted. In a few instances, Jews attacked Arabs and destroyed Arab property. These attacks, though inexcusable, were in most cases in retaliation for wrongs already committed by Arabs in the neighbourhood in which the Jewish attacks occurred. [In his activities connected to the dispute over the Holy Places] the Mufti was influenced by the twofold desire to annoy the Jews and to mobilize Moslem opinion on the issue of the Wailing Wall. He had no intention of utilizing this religious campaign as the means of inciting to disorder. [Indirectly, though, due to his part in the] events which lead to the outbreak, the Mufti, like many others who directly or indirectly played upon public feeling in Palestine, must accept a share in the responsibility... ...in the matter of innovations of practice [at the Wailing Wall] little blame can be attached to the Mufti in which some Jewish religious authorities also would not have to share. ...no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder. [No blame can be properly attached to the British government for failing to provide armed reinforcements, withholding of fire, and similar charges.] The fundamental cause ... is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... The feeling as it exists today is based on the twofold fear of the Arabs that by Jewish immigration and land purchases they may be deprived of their livelihood and in time pass under the political domination of the Jews. In our opinion the immediate causes of the outbreak were:- The long series of incidents connected with the Wailing Wall... These must be regarded as a whole, but the incident among them which in our view contributed most to the outbreak was the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on the 15th of August. ... Excited and intemperate articles which appeared in some Arabic papers, in one Hebrew daily paper and in a Jewish weekly paper... Propaganda among the less-educated Arab people of a character calculated to incite them. The enlargement of the Jewish Agency. The inadequacy of the military forces and of the reliable police available. The belief...that the decisions of the Palestine Government could be influenced by political considerations. The Commission recommended that the Government reconsider its policies as to Jewish immigration and land sales to Jews. This lead directly to the Hope Simpson Royal Commission in 1930.

---------------------------

I am not trying to excuse what atrocities have occured to palestinians at the hands of the Jews.But let's not forget the complete history of this conflict. The Arabs had many opportunities to end this Early on.

As someone who has for decades studied this conflict in depth and in great detail, and in all its aspects, and from all points of view, I can tell you that without any question at all this is pure rubbish. The only way "the Arabs" could have "ended this" would have been for the Palestinians to cede their homeland to the Zionists. To have done that would, by the way, have resulted one way or another, to the removal of the non-Jewish native population. "Transfer" of non-Jews out of the putative Jewish state has been part of the Zionist vision since the very beginning and over the decades a variety of schemes were devised to accomplish this. A couple of these schemes involved "transferring" them to Iraq.

If you really studied the history of this issue, you would know that it is not rubbish. As you are so quick to point out to the American soldiers that they have a choice to not fight, the Palestinian Arabs also had a choice to not try and jihad the jews out of existence.

The Jews didn't just spring into existence one day. But if they had, just Where would you have them go then?

Anonymous, if you had even the minimum amount of real knowledge of the Palestinian/Zionist/Israeli conflict you would know that your bit about the "Palestinian Arabs" tried to "jihad the Jews out of existence" is the biggest piece of rubbish of all. If anything, it has been the Zionists/Israelis (not "the Jews" who have tried to erase the existence of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, those pesky Palestinians continue to refuse to cease to exist.

Victor Hansen a proffesor of history doesn't seem to agree with you. You can read his thoughts on Islamic Tolerance of Jews, which state why the Palestinians will not stop killing until all Jews are dead.

Mahmoud Abbas told a group of Palestinian youths in Gaza City on Saturday:"We must remember that our achievements are the result of the sacrifices of the martyrs," he told thousands of supporters who gathered to greet him. "The martyrs have paved the road for us.

1. The "thoughts" you linked to are not those of Victor Hansen, but of Bruce Thornton.

2. Victor Hansen is not a historian, his area is Classics - i.e. studies of ancient Greek and Latin literature and culture. He has absolutely no expertise in Islam.

3. Bruce Thornton, whose "thoughts" you claim are those of Victor Hansen, has no qualifications as an expert, or even anyone remotely knowledgeable in Islam. His area is Greek, Latin, and English Comparative Literature.

4. The "thoughts" you linked to are the typical standard-issue uninformed anti-Islam bigotry you can find on any anti-Islam website. As sources of information on Islam they are exactly equivalent to the bigotted anti-Semitic rubbish you can find on neo-Nazi websites.

5. The quote from Mahmoud `Abbas has nothing whatsoever to do with killing Jews or anyone else for that matter. The martyrs he is referring to are all the Palestinians who have been killed in the struggle for Palestinian idependence.

Nevertheless, the article is on Mr. Hansen's own website. Furthermore the article referrences at least 4 diffent books, if not more, with as many authors. One of which is Ibn Warraq, a bestselling author and and secularist scholar of Islam currently living in the United States. He is a Muslim apostate and an outspoken critic of Islam who has written extensively on the oppressive nature of Islam.

You lied about the article you linked to and its authors. And if merely referencing a few books is enough to convince you of something, then I have some lovely oceanfront property in Baghdad that I know will interest you.

Oh yes, now that you have been caught out telling multiple lies about your source, it was a "mistake".

I have no idea what on earth history you think you are talking about, but this is the biggest pile of rubbish to come from you indeed. Never in history have the Muslims attacked the Jews, or vice versa.

And do not flatter yourself to think that I am angry. I do not give you and your willfull ignorance and bigotry that much importance. There are some people who in order to feel okay about themselves simply need to demonize one group or another and will do anything they can do to accomplish this. Some of these people demonize Jews, some demonize racial or national minorities living in their midst, and some, like you, choose Muslims and Islam as your evil entity of choice. I feel sorry for you actually.

The Massacres ofAugust 14th - September 1st 1929-The worst atrocities occurred in Hebron and Safed, where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others. The lone British policeman in the town, Raymond Cafferata, was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations).

Cafferata later Testified that:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him." Most of the other Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. The surviving Jews were evacuated from the town.

The other major centers of violence were in Safed, where 18 Jews were killed in a brief attack, and in Jerusalem.

If you want to read the Thoughtsof Victor Davis Hanson, you can find one of them below, in the form of answers to his readers column. Or just visit his Website and ask a question of your own.

And I promise, I didn't lie & make this up.

--------------------------------The questions section is updated daily in response to questions asked by the readership.If you have a question for Victor Davis Hanson send it to author@victorhanson.com

August 2005

Q) In the process of globalization, how do we understand the stumbling block, which, for many seems to be the Jewish presence? Consider that not only is anti-Semitism pervasive in the Muslim world, it is found in places where there has never been a significant Jewish community — like Japan. Today, many in the West and East consider Israel to be the primary obstacle to world peace. Is it useful, then, to tie a traditional anti-Semitism to the conspiratorial thinking of our “politically correct” and “postmodernists”?

A) Hanson: To understand anti-Semitism, go back to the Roman colonization of Judea and their frustration with a highly religious people who would not follow the canons of Roman imperial administration. After the destruction of the temple and Diaspora, Jews migrated throughout the empire and discovered that their religion was blamed for the death of Christ in a Christianizing world and that they were equated with an ethnic identity tied to a religion unlike Christianity’s inclusive proselytizing.

By the Middle Ages, statutes prohibiting them from landholding or full participation in European society were common. And yet with the changes to come in the world economy in the Renaissance, soon finance, insurance, currency trading, and transcontinental trading were now the real sources of wealth — not land.

So with great irony, the Jews often found success in previously spurned occupations, earning them envy and hatred—and influence. Given their emphasis on education and professional work, with the rise of the nation states, they found enormous success in medicine, science, and academic life—only further increasing anger at such a small but successful minority.

Particular zealots create hatred for the Jews for shifting reasons: for the Nazis they were not Aryans, but parasites who had lost World War I and were not of the German soil; for the communists they were tricky Trotskyites they had either betrayed the revolution or implemented a murderous communist Stalinism (take your pick). For the aristocrat, they are landless, rootless moneychangers who profit without grace; for the leftist hack, they are captains of commerce who create a system that oppresses the hardworking poor. For the Arab, they steal Palestine, for the Japanese they were responsible for WWII that was so disastrous for Japan. One either listens to all this, or, as in the case of the Islamicists’ grievances, realizes that it is rooted in hatred for and suspicion of a successful and proud minority that has won the wage of envy that Sikhs, Armenians, and expatriate Chinese often have as well.

We are in the most dangerous period of anti-Semitism since World War II, brought on by European appeasement of Arab hatred, and fears about oil supplies, terrorists, and Islam. But it is fool’s dream to think blaming the Jews will solve anything. A better rule: when you hear someone blame Israel or the Jews, it is usually a barometer that they have very little argument but a great deal of fear and anger.

Now most anti-Semitism that is sophisticated and insidious comes from the academic Left and is tied in with multiculturalism, and far more virulent than the old right-wing brand, since it enjoys the patina of political correctness.

2. Thanks, but I am no more interested in reading Victor Hanson's "thoughts" on Islam than I am in reading the average neo-Nazi's "thoughts" on Judaism. If I want to read about Islam or Judaism I will go to a Muslim or a Jew who have been well educated in their faith, or to a recognized Islamic or Judaic scholar, not someone who clearly has an axe to grind against the given religion, and who is speaking from ignorance and prejudice, not knowledge.

1. H.A. Muhammad is such a prominent Islamic scholar - such a prominent person in general, in fact - that not only have I never heard of him, after repeated Google and other searches I was only able to find one single entry for him. I could not find a word that he has written or spoken, or much of anything about him at all. The one bit of information is a mention of his name as president of an anti-Islam group organized by a group of disaffected self-designated so-called "apostates" who clearly have a giant axe to grind against Islam. The only information I was able to glean from my search about this individual is that he is a "Pakistani-American human rights activist". Nothing about his academic or any other qualifications. Of course, activists of all kinds are about a dime a dozen, but just in case I could get more information I tried various ways to find information about him as "human rights activist" - nothing. So, for all I can tell he could be a plumber, or a garage mechanic or an investment banker, or a store clerk.

2. Irfan Khawaja is yet another disaffected self-designated so-called "apostate" with a huge axe to grind against Islam who seems to allign himself with the most fanatically anti-Islam elements, including the notorious Daniel Pipes. He has no credentials of any kind to qualify him as an expert in Islam. His academic background is in Philosophy, not Islamic studies. He is the "executive director" of the same anti-Islam group on whose website the only mention of H.A. Muhammad can be found.

3. Not surprisingly, Hasan Mahmud is Vice President of the same anti-Islam group of which H.A. Muhammad and Irfan Khawaja are officers. According to Irfan Khawaja he is an "expert" on Islamic law, but I am able to find absolutely no evidence of any expertise, and no information at all about him or his background. In the second of only two entries turned up by my Googling efforts, he mentions that he has written a book, but if said book exists, it does not seem to be available or even heard of anywhere - at least not on the web.

4. Ibn Warraq is surprise, surprise, the "spiritual leader", if you will, and originator of the very same anti-Islam organization peopled by the first three. At least he appears to have some academic credentials - or at least claims to. It is difficult to know since he operates under a pseudonym, so his true identity is not known. However, he is far more of an anti-Islam polemicist than a true scholar, and clearly has an enormous axe to grind.

I am sorry, TT, but you are going to have to come up with something much better than this list to make a convincing case. I suggest that you might want to add to your readings on Islam some authors whose orientation is a bit less extreme? Maybe even some actual scholars who approach their subject in a dispassionate, non-polemical manner, and who will provide a full, balanced, and unbiased accounting of facts rather than those whose goal is to influence the reader either for or against? I can recommend as a starting point Islam, A Short History" by Karen Armstrong, who is a recognized expert on religion, who is not herself a Muslim, and who is neither trying to glorify nor demonize Islam, but merely to present a factual historical background.

PS It occurs to me that you do not really understand what makes someone an Islamic scholar, since you so consistently present as "Islamic scholars" individuals who do not possess even the minimum qualifications. May I suggest that you research this term in an effort to better understand what you are talking about?

No, I am simply stating the obvious fact that the incident you cited, and others like it were not attacks by "the Muslims" against "the Jews" any more than any of the many attacks and massacres by Zionists against Palestinians were attacks by "the Jews" against "the Muslims".

At no time in history have the Muslims attacked the Jews or vice versa.

It is very clear to any reasonable person what constitutes an Islamic scholar. One does not need expertise to make that determination. With the possible - and only possible - exception of Ibn Warraq, whose credentials cannot be confirmed, none of the four people you cited is an Islamic scholar, nor do they claim to be.

"the incident you cited, and others like it were not attacks by "the Muslims" against "the Jews"

Now you want to argue the definition of "Attack"?

Here it is:

Attack:Pronunciation: &-'takFunction: verbEtymology: Middle French attaquer, from (assumed) Old Italian estaccare to attach, from stacca stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English stacatransitive senses1 : to set upon or work against forcefully2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words3 : to begin to affect or to act on INJURIOUSLY4 : to set to work on5 : to THREATEN (a piece in chess) with immediate captureintransitive senses : to make an attack- at·tack·er nounsynonyms ATTACK, ASSAIL, ASSAULT, BOMBARD, STORM mean to make an onslaught upon. ATTACK implies taking the initiative in a struggle -plan to attack the town at dawn. ASSAIL implies attempting to break down resistance by repeated blows or shots -assailed the enemy with artillery fire. ASSAULT suggests a direct attempt to overpower by suddenness and violence of onslaught -commandos assaulted the building from all sides. BOMBARD applies to attacking with bombs or shells -bombarded the city nightly. STORM implies attempting to break into a defended position -preparing to storm the fortress.

Now that we have the definition, Lets take a look at history.

On August 14, 1929, 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv chanting "The Wall is ours". The next day, hundreds of Jews, including Betar members armed with batons, demonstrated at the Wall. Rumors and leaflets, some apparently prepared in advance, declared that the Jews were preparing to take control of the holy places and that Muslims should come to Jerusalem to defend them.

On Friday, August 16, 1929, after an inflammatory sermon, a demonstration organized by the Supreme Muslim Council, marched to the Wall and proceeded to burn prayer books and supplicatory notes left in the Wall's cracks. Responding to the Jewish protests, the acting High Commissioner Harry Luke answered that "no prayer books had been burnt but only pages of prayer books". The riots continued, and the next day one Jew was killed in the Bukharan Quarter. His funeral was turned into a political demonstration.

On August 20, Haganah leaders proposed to provide defense for 600 Jews of the Old Yishuv in Hebron or help them evacuate, but the community leaders declined these offers, insisting that they trust the A'yan (Arab leadership) to protect them.

The next Friday, August 23, 1929, Arabs, inflamed by false rumors that two Arabs had been killed by Jews started a murderous attack on Jews in the Old City. The violence quickly spread to other parts of the Palestine, Arab policemen often joining the mobs.

Throughout Palestine British authorities had only 292 policemen, fewer than 100 soldiers, six armored cars, and five or six aircraft.

While a number of Jews were being killed at the Jaffa Gate, British policemen did not open fire. By August 24, 17 Jews were killed in the Jerusalem area.

The worst atrocities occurred in Hebron and Safed, where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others. The lone British policeman in the town, Raymond Cafferata, was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations).

Now this history lesson states that "Arabs" attacked the Jews. If you would like to go strictly by what is written here, (and I know you would) then yes, you can say that Muslims did not attack the Jews. But please tell me and everyone else, what was & is commonly known to be the religious faith of the Palestinian-Arabs???

It Is Islam, AKA Muslim.

Now do you want to the definition of something else? or claim history is wrong?

As for statistics and "massacres", the Arab/Jewish riots in the 1920s seem to have worked out about evenly from your own figures (no mention of the hundreds of Palestinians slaughtered at Deir Yassin, Tantoura, Lydda etc in 1948, I notice). The two intifadas have seen thousands more Palestinian civilians killed than Israelis, with tens of thousands crippled and maimed, and an entire society left in ruins by Israeli ethnic cleansing and brutal apartheid. Both sides are suffering, but one side has all the guns and tanks and aircraft and US support. I have seen this for myself, yet I have also met plenty of Israelis and Palestinians who feel they could live in peace with their neighbours, even share a secular Israeli-Palestinian state. But as long as the occupation has to be maintained in order to further the demands of the racist fundamentalist settler movement subsidised by the US, there is little hope for peace. As Avraham Burg himself recognised 2 years ago.

If people in the US really want to help Israel, stop funding the Judaeo-fascists and start listening to the ordinary people on both sides who want peace. It's about land and water, not "security".

But I'm probably banging my head against a brick wall here. If any of you want to know what's really happening what's going on in the Occupied Territories, go to Gaza or Hebron or Ramallah or Jenin and see for yourselves. Maybe then you'll begin to understand why a few desperate people, out of millions abandoned by the world for more than 50 years, decide to transform themselves into murderous suicide bombers. We can all understand the historic reasons for Israeli paranoia, which is used to excuse decades of war crimes from Sabra and Chatila to Jenin and Gaza. It's time to put ourselves in the shoes of others for a change.